Playing Smart Maximizing the Potential of School and Community Property Through Joint Use Agreements
KaBOOM! is the national nonprofit dedicated to saving play. Children today spend less time playing outdoors than any previous generation, a fact that is having disastrous consequences on their health, achievement levels, and overall well-being. To fight this play deficit, social entrepreneur Darell Hammond founded nonprofit KaBOOM! in 1996 in Washington, D.C., with a vision of creating a great place to play within walking distance of every child in America. Since then, KaBOOM! has mapped over 89,000 places to play, built more than 2,080 playgrounds, and successfully advocated for play policies in hundreds of cities across the country. KaBOOM! also provides communities with online tools to self-organize and take action to support play on both a local and national level. www.kaboom.org ChangeLab Solutions is a national nonprofit dedicated to building healthy communities. We work with community-based organizations, local public health and planning departments, schools, elected representatives, and government agencies to create groundbreaking policy solutions to critical public health challenges. Our team of attorneys, policy analysts, urban planners and public health professionals provides high-quality policy research and analysis, technical assistance, and community-tailored training to help advocates translate aspirations for a healthy community into concrete policies and strategies that deliver real and lasting change. Our multidisciplinary team stands at the ready to put its tools and expertise – in food and beverages, physical activity, land use, transportation, and the environment – to work for you. www.changelabsolutions.org Thanks to Our Funders Support for the document was provided by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Kresge Foundation. Some material in this toolkit was adapted from research funded by The California Endowment.
Playing Smart Maximizing the Potential of School and Community Property Through Joint Use Agreements Edited by Manel Kappagoda, JD, MPH, and Robert S. Ogilvie, PhD (ChangeLab Solutions)
Chapter Authors • Chapter 1: Jeffrey M. Vincent, PhD (Center for Cities & Schools, University of California, Berkeley) and Manel Kappagoda, JD, MPH (ChangeLab Solutions) • Chapter 2: Amy Ackerman, JD, and Brian Pettit, JD (ChangeLab Solutions) • Chapter 3: Christie Findlay (Navigation Media), Danielle Marshall, MA (KaBOOM!), and Carrie Spector (ChangeLab Solutions) • Chapter 4: Robin Salsburg, JD (ChangeLab Solutions) • Chapter 5: Amy Barsky, JD (ChangeLab Solutions) • Chapter 6: Manel Kappagoda, JD, MPH (ChangeLab Solutions) Acknowledgments Thanks to the individuals who carefully reviewed and provided valuable feedback on various sections of this toolkit: Amy Ackerman, Marice Ashe, Chelsea Cipriano, Amy Dickinson, Susan Elizabeth, Karla Hampton, Gillian Hersh, Tia Hodges, Jim Hunn, Karen Kramer, MJ Kurs-Lasky, Ana Lasso, Danielle Marshall, Martin Martinez, Brian Pettit, Mike Raible, Carrie Spector, Jeff Vincent, Jonathan Wells, Wallace Whittier, and Ben Winig. Additional thanks to the following people who shared their experiences to help create the case studies featured in this toolkit: • David Moran, Assistant City Manager, City of Greenbelt, Maryland • Myrna Johnson, Executive Director, Boston Schoolyard Initiative • Martha Pierce, Education Advisor to the Mayor, City of Boston • Matt Wilder, Head of Media, City of Boston • Modie Cox, Executive Director, Winning Because I Tried (Niagara Falls, New York) • Sherry L. Shepherd-Corulli, City Government of Niagara Falls, New York • Thomas DeSantis, Senior Planner, City of Niagara Falls, New York • Charles Walker, City Councilman, City of Niagara Falls, New York • Patricia Travis, Youth Bureau, City of Niagara Falls, New York • Mike Rankin, City Attorney, City of Tucson, Arizona • Gary Scott, Manager, Tucson Parks and Recreation Department • Michael Raible, Executive Director, Planning and Development, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, North Carolina • Jonathan Wells, Program Manager, Capital Facilities, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department, City of Charlotte, North Carolina • Jim Ventress, Executive Director, Santa Clarita Valley Boys & Girls Club Thanks to those who provided documents and other materials (including sample agreements) that were cited, excerpted, or reprinted in this toolkit: • Leta Mach, Council Member, City of Greenbelt, Maryland • David E. Moran, Assistant City Manager, City of Greenbelt, Maryland • Michael Raible, Executive Director, Planning and Development, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, North Carolina • Jonathan Wells, Program Manager, Capital Facilities, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department, City of Charlotte, North Carolina ChangeLab Solutions formerly existed under the name Public Health Law & Policy (PHLP). Any references to PHLP in this publication should now be understood to refer to ChangeLab Solutions. ChangeLab Solutions is a nonprofit organization that provides legal information on matters relating to public health. The legal information provided in this document does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. For legal advice, readers should consult a lawyer in their state. © 2012 ChangeLab Solutions Graphic design by Karen Parry | Black Graphics Photos by: Lydia Daniller (cover, pages 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 19, 20, 23, 28, 33, 35, 39, 40, 42, 46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 65, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 101) KaBOOM! (pages 7, 12, 13, 36, 63, 76, 80, 91, 112, 123, 124, 128, 129, 130, 145, 153, 168) Robert S. Ogilvie (pages 5, 82) Peter R. Russo (page 31)
Contents Introduction 3 About This Toolkit 5 Chapter 1: The Relationship Between Joint Use Agreements and Physical Activity 6 Addressing Inequity in Opportunities for Physical Activity 7 The Promise of Joint Use Agreements 8 What Is a Joint Use Agreement? 8 National Support for Joint Use Agreements 9 What Are the Barriers to Creating Joint Use Agreements? 10 Chapter 2: Getting Started 12 Building Support at the State and Local Level 13 Checklist: Practical Issues to Consider When Developing a Joint Use Agreement 14 Chapter 3: Case Studies 19 Chapter 4: Financing Joint Use 39 Financing Options 40 Resource List 53 Chapter 5: Liability 54 Basic Liability Principles 55 Legal Protections 59
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 2 Other Protections 61 Overcoming the Liability Hurdle 64 A Final Note 66 Chapter 6: Strategies for Relationship-Building, Scheduling, and Maintenance 67 Building Relationships: Establishing a Work Group 68 Scheduling Access to the Facility 73 Staffing Issues 75 Maintenance and Upkeep 77 Working Through Conflicts 79 A Living Tool for Communication 79 Appendix 1: Model Joint Use Agreements 80 Appendix 2: Model Joint Use Resolution 123 Appendix 3: Sample Agreements 128 Endnotes 182
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 4 In many communities, it’s hard to find safe places for children and their families to exercise and play. Public schools might have a variety of recreational facilities – gymnasiums, playgrounds, fields, courts, tracks – but they often close their property to the community after school hours. Introduction School administrators point to various reasons for locking up their facilities after hours, including concerns about costs, vandalism, security, maintenance, contract issues, and liability in the event of injury. Most states have laws that encourage or even require schools to open their facilities to the community for recreation or other civic uses. Still, even when school officials are informed of these requirements – and even if they’re sympathetic to the community’s desire to use the grounds – they may be reluctant to comply, given the concerns cited above. The good news is that local governments can partner with school districts and other agencies through joint use agreements to address these concerns. A joint use agreement is a formal agreement between two separate government entities, often a school district and a city or county, setting forth the terms and conditions for the shared use of public property. In St. Petersburg, Florida, the city’s “Play ‘n’ Close to Home” initiative is using joint use agreements to help meet its goal of bringing a public playground within half a mile of every resident. The first joint use playground opened at an elementary school; the city agreed to maintain the 1.6-acre playground on school property in exchange for public use outside school hours between sunrise and sunset.1 In Seattle, the city and school district have implemented a more complex joint use agreement to centralize the scheduling of all school and city recreation facilities, making them more accessible and easier to reserve. In other communities around the country, schools and cities have partnered to build new recreational facilities for schools and neighborhoods.2 Joint use agreements allow school districts to share with local government the costs and responsibilities incurred by opening their facilities. Subject to overriding state and local laws, the agreements can allocate to local government some or all of the responsibility for costs, security, supervision, maintenance, repairs, and potential liability. Beyond simply working with schools, cities also have begun to explore agreements with nonprofits, hospitals, and local universities in an effort to increase the available resources. Although this toolkit focuses primarily on partnerships with schools, many of the issues and strategies
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 5 Appendix 1 features model agreement language for four basic types of joint use agreements, designed to serve as templates for other communities. Appendix 2 provides a model resolution that a city or county could use to create a joint use task force. Appendix 3 provides sample language and other material from joint use agreements referenced in this toolkit to show how different communities have articulated and resolved issues that emerge during negotiations. In an era of budget shortfalls, expanding access to facilities that already exist is one of the most promising ways to bring new resources to neighborhoods that need them most. This toolkit will help community leaders develop the know-how to establish and sustain joint use agreements for years to come. apply to a broader spectrum of joint use agreements. With thoughtful planning, joint use agreements can play an important role in increasing recreational opportunities for children and their families. In the case of schools, parents and community members can get involved by urging school officials (including school board members) and city or county officials to pursue a joint use agreement that would make school facilities more widely accessible. About This Toolkit This toolkit shares what we have learned from successful agreements, offering guidelines and templates for other communities looking to expand their access to school recreational facilities. Chapter 1 lays out the research between poor health and limited access to recreational facilities, and introduces joint use as a concept. Chapter 2 looks at ways to foster support for joint use at the state and local level, and provides a step-by-step checklist for negotiating and developing a joint use agreement. Chapter 3 profiles several joint use initiatives to illustrate how different communities across the country have negotiated and implemented agreements. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the most common strategies for financing joint use agreements. Chapters 5 and 6 offer guidance on how to overcome obstacles that may arise in negotiating and enforcing a joint use agreement.
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 7 Nearly a third of American children and adolescents3 – and two-thirds of American adults4 – are overweight or obese. Over the past few decades, obesity rates have soared for all age groups, doubling among preschoolers and more than quadrupling among children ages 6 to 11.5 Chapter 1 The Relationship Between Joint Use Agreements and Physical Activity To counter rising rates of obesity and related diseases, Americans are urged to eat healthier foods and lead more active lives. For many, however, it’s difficult to follow this advice where they live. Walking and bicycling are dangerous on roads designed for cars driving at high speeds. Schools and shopping districts are too far from homes for children and their families to reach on foot. Parks, playgrounds, and other outdoor recreation areas are often remote, inaccessible, or poorly maintained – if they exist at all. For too many communities, these factors combine to make healthy choices all but impossible. Addressing Inequity in Opportunities for Physical Activity Barriers to recreational opportunities are particularly pronounced in lower-income neighborhoods. Health challenges, and in particular the risk of overweight and obesity, do not affect all of us equally. Disparities in overweight and obesity prevalence exist in many segments of the population, based on race and ethnicity, gender, age, and socioeconomic status.6 The very same communities that are at greater risk for overweight and obesity have far fewer parks and open spaces. A national study of 20,000 young people in the United States found that resources for physical activity – including public parks and recreation facilities, as well as private facilities – were distributed inequitably, with non-white and lower-income neighborhoods twice as likely as higher-income white neighborhoods to lack even one facility for physical activity.7 Communities with higher poverty rates and higher percentages of African-American residents have significantly fewer parks and green spaces.8 In addition, substantial research supports the commonsense contention that young people, particularly adolescents, who do not have safe places for participating in positive activities during after-school hours are more likely to engage in potentially dangerous activities such as drug use, risky sexual behaviors, and gang involvement. Access to safe recreational facilities is one critical element to solving this problem. Indeed, parents rank safety as the number one factor in deciding whether and where their children can play.9 Because children are more likely to be physically active when they’re outside,10 outdoor safety is important.11 A lack of safety outdoors is a
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 8 and economical use of public resources. Although this toolkit focuses on school recreational facilities, joint use agreements can be used to maximize other community assets, such as libraries, theaters, and community gardens. When the school day ends, school facilities are often closed to community residents who might otherwise use them. Understandably, school districts lock their facilities because they lack the capacity and funds to run programs, and they may have concerns about additional legal or maintenance costs that might arise from the use of school property outside regular school hours. At the same time, communities across the country are expressing a growing desire for safe, accessible, and affordable places for activity – and some are demanding access to what are, in fact, public resources. As a formal legal document, a joint use agreement can facilitate community access to school facilities and grounds. What Is a Joint Use Agreement? A joint use agreement refers to a written agreement between a school district and one or more public or private (nonprofit) entities, allowing public access to school property and detailing the shared responsibility for maintaining the facilities. Implicit in the agreement is that public, and in some cases private, resources will be pooled to expand community access and use public space more efficiently. Joint use agreements can be written for various types of facilities; this toolkit focuses solely on indoor and outdoor school recreational facilities, such as gymnasiums and playgrounds. These agreements can range from informal or “open” public use to organized after-school and weekend athletic activities for adults and youth. challenge for children living in lower-income neighborhoods. One study in Boston found that playgrounds in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates and higher percentages of African-Americans were less safe than those in other neighborhoods, not only with regard to having well-designed and maintained equipment but also with regard to security from crime.12 The safety concern is borne out in obesity statistics: one recent study found that children whose parents perceived their neighborhoods as especially unsafe were four times as likely to be obese as children living in neighborhoods perceived as safe.13 Safe playgrounds offer children living in disadvantaged neighborhoods the potential for physical activity. Playgrounds are sites of high physical activity in a diverse range of neighborhoods.14 In rural areas, playgrounds attract children more than nearby fields do.15 In inner-city neighborhoods, safe playgrounds increase the number of children engaging in physical activity. One intervention in an impoverished urban neighborhood in New Orleans showed that keeping a schoolyard with a play structure open after school hours and providing adult supervision increased the number of children who remained outside and active after school by 84 percent.16 The Promise of Joint Use Agreements In recent years, increasing access to existing recreational facilities at schools has emerged as one of the most promising strategies for building more opportunities for activity. This promise is rooted in the realization that even the most poorly designed and underserved neighborhoods include schools. In an era of budget shortfalls, maximizing access to existing facilities – rather than trying to construct new ones – is the most efficient
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 9 National Support for Joint Use Agreements Community use of public school facilities and grounds is as old as public education itself. Schools have historically been the site for all kinds of community events and public meetings. There is typically an assumption that communities can get access to their schools, especially outside of regular school hours. Nationally recognized authorities – such as the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity,17 the American Academy of Pediatrics,18 and the Institute of Medicine19 – have recommended joint use of school facilities as a strategy to increase physical activity opportunities in underserved communities. Child health and physical activity advocates are not alone in their support for joint use. In the 2000 report Schools as Centers of Community: A Citizen’s Guide for Planning and Design, the U.S. Department of Education recommends joint use as an important strategy in its school design principles.20 Building Educational Success Together (BEST), a national collaborative of educational equity and school facility advocates, promotes joint use in its model policies to support high-performing schools.21 The community school movement, aimed at bringing providers of student health and other support services into school buildings, applies the joint use concept.22 Urban planners and community developers have also advocated for joint use schools, particularly those connected to the smart growth movement.23 The National Trust for Historic Preservation recommends joint use in establishing schools as centers of communities.24 All of these perspectives point to the potential for multiple benefits of joint use – improving educational outcomes, increasing community amenities and physical activity, using public resources more efficiently, and more.25 A few states, including North Carolina,26 Maryland,27 and California, also have promoted joint use. In recent statewide school construction bonds, California has created a pot of capital funds for building or renovating school facilities to support joint use. Additionally, both the California Department of Education and the Division of the State Architect encourage joint use in their state agency documents.28 However, no state appears to Joint use partnerships are not simple to implement, and they must be thoughtfully crafted. Even the seemingly straightforward act of unlocking school playgrounds on weekends takes time, money, administrative oversight, and political support.
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 10 have established a robust policy or funding framework to fully support, incentivize, or guide local joint use efforts.29 A 2006 study found that only 29 percent of the nation’s public and private schools provided open access to their physical activity spaces and facilities outside of normal school hours.30 Moreover, it appears that in lower-income areas there is less access to schools, suggesting a disparity in community access.31, 32 As this toolkit illustrates, however, there are many bright spots across the country from which to learn and build upon. For example, a 2006 survey of California school districts found that nearly 60 percent already have some form of joint use in place, and half reported that they were in the process of building new schools that will incorporate some type of joint use facility.33 What Are the Barriers to Creating Joint Use Agreements? In some localities, community access has become more difficult due to school district concerns over liability and vandalism, budget cuts in facilities maintenance and staffing, and increased use by schools or school-connected groups. Joint use partnerships are not simple to implement, and they must be thoughtfully crafted. Even the seemingly straightforward act of unlocking school playgrounds on weekends takes time, money, administrative oversight, and political support to plan, fund, and implement; programs also can require ongoing coordination, communication, and cooperation among partners who have little or no history of working together.34 One study conducted in four communities in the United States found that safety, insurance, and liability concerns are key barriers.35 Joint use agreements can help address these and other concerns by clearly articulating each partner’s financial, legal, and operational responsibilities. But there is no one-size-fits-all approach. As the case studies in this toolkit illustrate, the terms of these agreements will vary depending on community needs and characteristics. Communities can put joint use agreements to work for more than school recreational facilities, expanding access to libraries, parks, and other city and county properties. Developing and nurturing joint use agreements creates a win-win for students and the entire community. This toolkit breaks down the elements of a strong joint use agreement and provides information about how to overcome potential barriers to implementation.
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 11 Joint Use Terminology* JOINT USE** The use of school district facilities by a non-district entity. SHARED USE When a school space is used by the school during school hours and by a non-school user after hours (for example, a classroom for instruction during the school day and for program activities after school). DEDICATED USE When a school space is exclusively available to the outside entity during the school day and after school (for example, an after-school office or storage area). CIVIC USE The occasional joint use of school buildings and grounds by individuals or groups (for example, for voting, community meetings, special events, or as emergency shelters, as well as casual use by the public for recreational purposes). REAL ESTATE JOINT USE Use, either shared or dedicated, where the user seeks no relationship with the school or its families but desires access to the school facility. DROP-IN USE When the space is made available for informal, drop-in activities. In this case, the user does not reserve the space in advance. Usually, spaces are made available for drop-in use during specified hours. ONE-TIME USE When a school space is available to the outside entity during the school day and/or after school for a specific period of time on a single day. Typically, the user has reserved the space in advance. REPEATED USE, SHORT TERM When a school space is available to the outside entity during the school day and/or after school for a specified number of hours over a longer period of time (e.g., multiple days, weeks, or months). JOINT DEVELOPMENT Two or more entities partnering to plan, site, design, and/or build a new school or renovate an existing school to better support the joint use of the building and/or land. Joint User Types INDIVIDUALS Persons, generally residents of a community, who have access to exterior spaces (such as play equipment, athletic fields, or courts) and open space for personal use. CIVIC GROUPS Individuals or organizations who seek occasional use of school buildings and grounds for activities or events such as polling, community meetings, and special events. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES Public agencies that are not part of the school district and may offer programs, need to lease space, and/or seek joint development with ongoing joint programming. PRIVATE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Nonprofit groups using school buildings and/or grounds for programs such as after-school activities, health clinics, or adult education classes. PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS For-profit groups using school buildings and/or grounds for education-related work, such as a private testing service, or unrelated work purposes, such as private offices. * The definitions are taken from the following document: 21st Century School Fund and Center for Cities & Schools (March 2010). Joint Use of Public Schools: A Framework for a New Social Contract. Washington, DC: 21st Century School Fund. Available at http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/reports/2010_JU_Concept_Paper.pdf ** Note that school-based joint use agreements are the primary focus of this toolkit, but joint use agreements can also be put in place with other local government agencies as well as with nonprofit and private organizations. The Center for Cities & Schools at the University of California, Berkeley is an action-oriented policy and technical assistance do-tank whose mission is to promote high-quality education as an essential component of urban and metropolitan vitality to create equitable, healthy, and sustainable communities for all. To learn more, visit: http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu.
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 13 Joint use agreements are not a simple undertaking: the scope and terms must be planned carefully, and garnering support from decision-makers at various levels is key. This chapter looks at ways to foster support for joint use at the state and local level, and provides a checklist of practical issues to consider when developing a joint use agreement. Chapter 2 Getting Started Building Support at the State and Local Level State and local policymakers can help promote joint use initiatives by providing funding and policy support. Creating a joint use task force helps ensure coordination and ongoing communication among local agencies, community groups, and other stakeholders. State agencies can develop grant programs to fund joint use policy development, or participate in state-level strategic planning efforts. Here are some examples of policy strategies at the state and local level that support joint use: The Arkansas Department of Education runs the Arkansas Joint Use Agreement (JUA) grant program, a competitive pool of funding for local joint use initiatives funded by the Arkansas Tobacco Excise Tax. These grants help schools adopt and implement joint use policy and form collaborative partnerships to maximize resources while increasing opportunities for physical activity. Funds are available each fiscal year based on Tobacco Excise Tax appropriations or until funds are expended.36 In May 2008, California advocates established the Joint Use Statewide Task Force (JUST), which includes representatives of public health agencies, civil rights groups, urban planning agencies, local elected and appointed officials, park and recreation agencies, local school boards, academic researchers, and communitybased organizations. In addition to promoting community access to school playgrounds through joint use agreements, JUST’s mission also includes providing a venue to discuss these local and regional efforts and to develop long-term, sustainable actions at the state level. JUST’s website provides an online forum to facilitate this ongoing discussion and provide technical support.37 In 2010, Public Health – Seattle & King County secured two Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for obesity prevention efforts. The grants were directed in part to increase equitable access to safe and attractive school facilities outside of the school day for physical activity and recreation.38 In North Carolina, by joint resolutions, the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 14 County created a joint use task force (JUTF), which provides a comprehensive and coordinated picture of the community’s capital facilities. These resolutions endorsing joint facility planning and use were later adopted by the CharlotteMecklenburg Board of Education, the local community college board, and the county library board. Today, planning staff from more than two dozen government agencies, along with representatives from nonprofit organizations, meet monthly to develop collaborative joint use agreements and to coordinate long-term facility master plans.39 Many communities across the country address joint use in their official land use planning documents, known variously as general plans, comprehensive plans, development plans, land use plans, master plans, and urban plans. Some communities even have specific joint use elements in these plans. (For example, Florida requires that every comprehensive plan address intergovernmental coordination; Highlands County’s comprehensive plan requires that the county and the school board negotiate in good faith to enter and revise joint use agreements regarding the use of existing facilities for parks and recreation.40) General plans are public documents, which are typically available on a city or county’s website and are usually updated every ten years or so. Advocates for joint use and healthy built environment policies should get involved in their community’s general plan update as a way to influence the longterm vision and character of their community.41 Checklist: Practical Issues to Consider When Developing a Joint Use Agreement This checklist can serve as a starting point for agencies and community groups looking to enter into a joint use agreement. It focuses on agreements between cities and schools, but the same considerations apply to other entities that want to enter into these types of agreements. The checklist is included at this point in the toolkit to provide readers with an overview of the issues that can arise at each stage of the joint use agreement process. Many of the topics highlighted in this checklist are discussed in more detail in chapters 4, 5 and 6. Of course, not all of the issues will apply to all situations, and there may be issues unique to particular communities that are not included here.
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 15 Checklist Identify community and school needs. To assess the community’s needs for additional recreational opportunities, identify: Underserved communities (such as lower-income communities lacking neighborhood parks and community centers) Unmet recreation or physical activity needs, including assessing health problems among schoolchildren that could be addressed by more physical activity Locations in the community where recreation and physical activity needs can be met by school facilities The types of recreation facilities required to meet these needs (e.g., outdoor vs. indoor) The time of day that access is needed (e.g., weekend, evening) To assess school needs, identify: Students’ unmet physical education and recreation needs (ones the city might meet) Facility needs (for improvements, maintenance support, scheduling assistance) Identify potential properties. Inventory facilities to determine what is available. Assess the suitability of these properties for joint use, taking into consideration the condition of the property and the degree of support from local families and school personnel. Identify the facilities that best serve unmet needs (by location, facility type, or other factor), and describe the facilities, structures, equipment, and other resources to be shared. Describe the services and programs the joint use project will provide. Identify partner organizations. Identify the organizations and nonprofits – such as YMCAs and sports leagues – that would benefit from use of the facilities, and then build relationships with them, perhaps inviting them to sit on a joint use task force or participate in the negotiations. Build relationships with the appropriate decision makers. Identify supportive decision makers (school board members, city council members, other public officials) and build relationships with them. Work with them to assess whether other important decision makers support or oppose joint use, and figure out a strategy for winning over any potential allies. In other words, find out who your allies are, and mobilize them to get others on board. Make sure the concept is approved. The school board and the governing entity of the city, county, or town should first approve the concept of developing a joint use agreement.* Appealing to these entities’ interests – and ensuring those interests will be represented in the joint use agreement – is critical to securing this approval. Select negotiators. Identify the employees from each partner entity who will be responsible for developing the agreement. They should be knowledgeable about the facilities and proposed programs, and they should have enough experience to develop informed recommendations on behalf of their organization. * Depending on the state and locality, a city, county, or town could enter into a joint use agreement with a school district or community college district. For purposes of this document, we will use “city” to refer to the local government and “district” to refer to the school or community college district.
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 16 Checklist Agree upon the scope of the agreement. Which facilities on each property should be included in the agreement? Will other organizations (“third parties”) be allowed to operate programs at these facilities? Will city properties also be open to school use? Should scheduling be consolidated for multiple facilities? These are some of the issues to consider and resolve when establishing the scope of the agreement. Inspect proposed facilities. Both parties should examine the facilities together to establish and document the baseline conditions. Identify and reach agreement on issues involving use. All parties need to agree on operational and management issues, including: Which users have priority access for different facilities (i.e., the earliest opportunity to reserve the facility) Which entity will be responsible for scheduling use, and how changes/cancellations will be accommodated Whether and what type of security is needed, and which employees will need access Who is responsible for providing equipment, and where the equipment will be stored if needed; how the storage area will be secured, and who will have access to it The type of supervision necessary for the way the property is going to be used, and which party will be responsible for providing supervision The type of custodial services and equipment needed (e.g., trash containers), and who is responsible for providing it Whether to allow access to existing toilet facilities, and who is responsible for maintenance; whether portable/temporary facilities are needed, and who is responsible for providing them Whether to provide access to parking facilities Who is responsible for regular property maintenance, and which party will provide any additional maintenance if needed The manner and frequency for inspecting properties, and the protocol for notifying designated employees of damage (including whom to contact, by what means, and deadlines for contacting and responding) The method and responsibility for repairing property, the method for calculating the repair costs, and how to allocate those costs Work with risk management and legal counsel throughout the process of negotiating and drafting the agreement. Allocate liability risk, and determine whether and what type of indemnification to require. Determine the types and amounts of insurance to require (consistent with legal and risk management requirements) and the types of documentation to exchange or require. Ensure the agreement is consistent with existing state and local law and regulations, permitting procedures (amending if necessary), and fee procedures or structure (amending if necessary). Identify and resolve employment issues. Extending the facilities’ hours of operation likely means both the school district and the city will require some of their employees to work additional time. Consult with legal counsel to resolve any employment-related issues by, for instance, amending labor agreements or determining whether some of these duties can be covered by volunteers.
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 17 Checklist Develop a communication protocol. One of the most important elements of a successful joint use agreement is ensuring that all parties communicate effectively during its term. Establish a way for identified employees to communicate regularly about the agreement, and set up a process for resolving disagreements regarding any aspect of it. Identify and reach agreement on issues involving third-party use. If third parties (such as youth organizations or youth sports leagues) will be allowed to use the facilities, the district and the city need to agree on various operational and management issues. The agreement will need to establish the priority of uses for third-party programs and the protocol for scheduling. The district and city will also need to ensure that third-party permitting or lease procedures are adequate; this includes making sure resources are allocated according to identified priorities, as well as addressing issues regarding access, fees, insurance and risk management, and liability. Agree upon improvements and improvement protocol. Consider whether and how the parties will allow each other to make improvements to the property. Determine how to allocate the associated costs and ownership of the improvements. Agree upon how to determine and allocate costs. Calculate the costs of sharing the facilities, and determine how to allocate these equitably. Be sure to identify which components of costs to measure, and the methodology to use to determine costs. For example, an agreement might identify the square footage of the area affected by the agreement and spell out the share of costs for maintenance, operations, and utilities each partner will bear. Determine the term of the agreement, methods of evaluation, and the renewal process. In addition to determining the length or duration of the agreement, include acceptable reasons for canceling or terminating it before the term ends. Identify exactly how and when the agreement will be evaluated and the data to collect. Establish the process and conditions for renewing the agreement. Identify training needs and develop a training plan. Determine whether agency personnel need training to carry out the agreement, including instruction on any new procedures or duties assigned to employees. Determine who is responsible for conducting any training, and identify the employees who need to participate. Develop exhibits to the agreement. These can include a list of properties subject to the agreement, an inventory of the conditions of the properties, hours of use, operating rules, insurance documentation, and forms for thirdparty users to complete. Receive formal approval. Once the governing entities formally approve the agreement, the work of overseeing its implementation begins. Crafting a successful joint use agreement is not a simple process. It requires a lot of thought, work, and cooperation, and it can take some effort to reach agreement on the range of issues involved. Successful joint use collaborations will take the time to define the resources being governed and clearly articulate each partner’s roles and responsibilities. This type of comprehensive and open process will result in an effective agreement and minimize any potential conflict, ensuring that the benefits of the partnership outweigh the challenges.
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 18 One reason school districts cite for not recovering the costs involved in joint use is that they are unsure what to charge users. In most states, state law dictates whether schools may charge fees for use of their property. State laws may also specify how much schools may charge – for example, requiring free use for school-related groups or allowing nonprofit users only to recoup direct costs. (For more information about state laws addressing user fees, see the Fifty-State Scan of Laws Addressing Community Use of Schools at www.nplan.org/nplan/products/community-use-charts.) The Center for Cities & Schools at the University of California, Berkeley, in partnership with the 21st Century School Fund, has developed a set of tools for implementing and sustaining joint use and joint development of public school facilities, including a School Facilities Joint Use Cost Calculator.42 Assuming use of the tool is consistent with the law in your state, the joint use cost calculator can help address the following issues: Identify the elements of the cost of maintaining school district facilities Calculate full cost of ownership on a per-squarefoot and per-hour basis Determine policy decisions school districts need to make about which users to subsidize Create fee structure options for various non-school users, based on the real cost of ownership The goal of this tool is to help stakeholders maximize the use of public educational assets for school and community benefit. For more information, visit http://citiesandschools.berkeley.edu/joint-use.html. Calculating Fees
[Chapter Name Here] Wriiten By: [Author Name Here]
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 20 Chapter 3 Case Studies Joint use agreements vary greatly in scope, shaped largely according to the character of the community they are designed to serve. This chapter looks at how joint use agreements expanded opportunities for exercise in six very different communities across the nation. Boston, Massachusetts Population 617,594 Development pattern High-density city Population density 12,760 per square mile of land Median household income $39,629 Partners involved City of Boston Boston Public Schools Boston Schoolyard Funders Collaborative Boston Schoolyard Initiative Many Boston schoolyards were paved over in the 1950s when city leaders discovered that asphalt cuts down maintenance costs. This left many of the city’s schools – which serve roughly 56,000 students, 72 percent of whom are eligible for free or reduced lunch – without any available green space. Many of the playgrounds built after the 1950s were set on top of asphalt surfaces. Today, a large-scale partnership between the city, private donors, a schoolyard nonprofit, and the public school system is improving play opportunities for Boston’s children. Launched in 1995, the partnership uses informal agreements to guide its efforts. In 16 years, 81 schoolyards have been revitalized into vibrant spaces that encourage both playing and learning; a multi-subject curriculum helps educators teach math, writing, science, and more using these playgrounds. More than 25,000 children have been reached, and the spaces are open for neighborhood enjoyment. And all that asphalt? More than 130 acres have been reclaimed. “I was amazed at how well the original documentation works,” says Myrna Johnson, the executive director of the Boston Schoolyard Initiative. “One of the guiding documents – the first task force
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 21 report written in 1995 – continues to guide our work. There are no hard-copy versions around anymore, but I have a scanned version, and I hold onto it like the Bible.” The task force report came about in the early 1990s when the Boston Globe Foundation wanted to award grants to community groups to improve the city’s environment. Its executive director, Suzanne Maas, established the Urban Land Use Task Force to gather input from private and public health, housing, and community organizing groups, along with school administrators, community members, environmental advocates, health professionals, and other funders. Schoolyards quickly surfaced as one of the group’s five top priorities. The local philanthropy community also got involved, spearheaded by the Boston-based The Philanthropic Initiative (TPI). With private foundation and individual funding sources, constituent support, and organizational backing, the Boston GreenSpace Alliance (a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the city’s parks and open spaces) reached out to Mayor Thomas Menino in 1994 and asked him to use his political clout to further their cause. The groups decided to establish the Boston Schoolyard Initiative (BSI), which would work directly with schools to design and complete projects. It would be supported by a private entity, the Boston Schoolyard Funders Collaborative (BSFC). BSI launched in 1995 as part of a five-year initiative. The mayor committed $10 million in city funds over five years to the initiative. From the beginning, BSI envisioned these playgrounds as both play and educational spaces. “Their proximity to schools cries out for a higher degree of interactivity, and they offer us the opportunity to combine recreation, creative play, and academic learning,” BSI notes in its literature. The features of each space are colorful, interactive, and unique to that particular community. All use engaging focal points geared toward both students and local residents. Some spaces may feature brightly colored artwork. In some schools children elect to have maps of the globe painted on the asphalt. Each of the redesigned playgrounds includes built structures and play equipment. Some include natural elements like boulders, trees, grass, and other plants. Features in the schoolyards are integrated into the curriculum. Tracks around the school offer math teachers the opportunity to teach students about circumference. Timing children as they run around the track can teach students how to calculate miles per hour. Every three years, the groups meet to select which schools will receive new schoolyards, and how much money each group will contribute. A memo then goes to the mayor’s office for his approval, but the working group makes the choices and then moves forward with the plans.
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 22 “Our relationship with Boston is rather informal,” Johnson says. “We have an application and review process that helps us make decisions involving the city, Boston Public Schools, and the Boston Schoolyard Funders Collaborative – the three groups that make up the Boston Schoolyard Initiative. But there are really no legal documents guiding the collaboration. “In some ways it’s an asset, because it allows us to be very flexible,” she adds. “Joint use agreements are now in vogue. But these projects were always designed to serve the broader community, not just the school. So the joint use approach is just built into the process.” The BSFC pays for staffing the initiative and is increasingly supporting capital costs, plus a planning grant for schools. The city currently contributes about $3 for every $1 in private funding on the capital side. But when you include private funding for educational programming, the ratio is closer to $2 to $1. The yearly capital investment in the BSI is estimated at $1.1 million from the city and $300,000 from the Funders Collaborative. The BSFC also invests at least $150,000 annually in education programs. The original plan was for a five-year public commitment. But with continued support from both private funders and the public, the program is ongoing. BSI currently has three projects in the planning phase; when construction is complete, nearly 90 Boston schools will enjoy creative outdoor play spaces. With the schoolyard renovation process going smoothly, BSI is able to focus increasingly on curriculum development. Communities across the country are now modeling their own curriculum after the city’s innovative approaches. “Boston has led the way on making curriculum connections between science and writing,” Johnson says. “I think it’s very exciting – we’re harvesting the power of the schoolyard to deepen student learning.”
Playing Smart changelabsolutions.org | kaboom.org 23 Greenbelt, Maryland Population 21,456 Development pattern High-density small city Population density 3,586 per square mile Median household income $46,328 Partners involved Two homeowners’ associations One homeowners’ cooperative (similar to an HOA) City of Greenbelt Greenbelt was the first U.S. federal housing project. It was designed in 1935 as a complete city, with businesses, schools, roads, and recreational facilities, and built as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Emergency Relief Appropriation Act. The original plan emphasized a pedestrian-friendly downtown, along with playgrounds, ball fields, and open space, most of which still exists. From its inception, Greenbelt has valued civic engagement. The first families to live in Greenbelt were chosen based on income criteria as well as a demonstrated willingness to participate in the life of the community. In 1953, when the federal government turned over the housing portion of the town to the citizens, Greenbelt formed a housing cooperative and continued to function collaboratively, forming a cooperative baby-sitting pool, nursery school, and kindergarten. With the privatization of Greenbelt’s homes, some of the playgrounds became city property while others became the property of new homeowners and the housing cooperative. There were a number of small separate playgrounds that overlapped both city and housing co-op property lines. In the 1980s, the city and the housing cooperative, now named Greenbelt Homes Inc. (GHI), formalized a joint use agreement for playgrounds. Previous understandings regarding playground ownership lines and maintenance responsibility between the city and GHI had been informal. As part of this joint use agreement, the city agreed to be responsible for playground maintenance, and GHI took responsibility for mowing grass and trash removal. In exchange for the city providing maintenance, playgrounds were opened to the broader public from dawn until dusk. The city gradually added new construction and additional homeowners’ associations (HOAs). By 2000, HOAs owned 25 of the 66 playgrounds in Greenbelt. When the city began discussing a plan to renovate existing playgrounds within GHI – but not within other HOAs – the new HOAs argued that GHI should not get preferential treatment. The city soon agreed to create joint use agreements with all HOAs in Greenbelt. The result has been a significant increase in both the quality of and access to play space in the city.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTkzMzk=